JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. The sole appellant Lodha Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation. 2. The victim of the incident was Matleb Ali, aged about 40 years. 3. According to the prosecution case, Matleb Ali was a cattle trader. He went to the house of appellant to buy his cow, but the deal could not be finalized for disagreement on sale consideration for which a quarrel also took place between the two. On that very night, one cow of the appellant was allegedly stolen by Matleb Ali. Being infuriated, appellant hacked Matleb Ali with a dao from backside on his neck and chest, at about 10/11 a.m. on 17.11.2011. At that time, Matleb Ali was with another cattle trader - Bal Bahadur (PW-1). Matleb Ali being grievously injured fell down and died immediately whereas the appellant fled. 4. Kutub Khan (PW-2) - brother of Matleb Ali - coming to know about the death of his brother, lodged Exhibit-1 - First Information Report on that day itself at Tamulpur Police Station and the same was registered vide case No. 204/2011 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In his report, he stated that some unknown miscreant hacked Matleb Ali with sharp weapon from behind, while he was on his way to Kherani to purchase cows and left him dead at Kherani Karkhela Chariali. 5. Sub-Inspector Dipak Das (PW-7) immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and after conducting inquest over the dead body of Matleb Ali sent the dead body for post mortem examination to Nalbari SMK Civil Hospital. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. Later on, the case diary being handed over to Upendra Nath (PW-6), he took up investigation and arrested the appellant. He also seized one sickle dao from the possession of the appellant vide Exhibit-4 seizure list in the presence of Kutub Khan (PW-2), Bondhan Khan and Raju Khatowal (PW-3). 6. Dr. Tushar Kanti Chakrabarty (PW-4) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Matleb Ali. He found one sharp cutting injury over right occipital region and one cut injury over right side of face from right mandible to the thyroid cartilage. He also found 13 penetrating injuries over chest wall on both sides. 6. Dr. Tushar Kanti Chakrabarty (PW-4) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Matleb Ali. He found one sharp cutting injury over right occipital region and one cut injury over right side of face from right mandible to the thyroid cartilage. He also found 13 penetrating injuries over chest wall on both sides. According to him, death of Matleb Ali was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries caused. His post mortem examination report is Exhibit-3. 7. On completion of investigation, Ganesh Barman (PW-8) submitted Exhibit-5 chargesheet for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 8. During trial, appellant, while being examined as an accused, admitted his guilt. The appellant also explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Matleb Ali used to come to his house to buy his cow. As he did not sell his cow because the price was not agreed upon, they had a quarrel. Then, Matleb Ali told him that in the event of his cow being lost, he (appellant) would not get a single paisa and that night itself Matleb Ali came to his house, with a vehicle, and stole his cow. So he had a fight with Matleb Ali. Appellant also admitted that the sandals seized by police might belong to him. However, he stated that the dao was seized from the people of village. The trial court relying upon the evidence of sole eye witness Bal Bahadur and admission of the appellant, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 9. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that it is not safe to convict the appellant on basis of testimony of a single witness without being supported by any other cogent evidence. There is no independent witness to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is the perpetrator of crime and hence the conviction is not sustainable. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor defended the impugned conviction and sentence. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Bal Bahadur has categorically deposed that when Matleb Ali was with him purchasing cow, appellant gave a dao blow to Matleb Ali from backside and he sustained injury on the back of his neck and died. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Bal Bahadur has categorically deposed that when Matleb Ali was with him purchasing cow, appellant gave a dao blow to Matleb Ali from backside and he sustained injury on the back of his neck and died. In his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also, he stated exactly similar to his testimony and as such his testimony in the court is fully supported by his earlier statement. The appellant has also, as mentioned above, admitted his guilt, while being examined as an accused. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has explained that he had a fight with Matleb Ali as the latter stole his cow on quarrel over disagreement on the sale consideration of appellant's cow, for which he hacked Matleb Ali. Thus, appellant had a motive too, to kill Matleb Ali. The dao was seized by police which is a sharp weapon and the injuries caused to Matleb Ali can be caused by such a weapon. Appellant has also admitted that the sandals seized from the place of occurrence belonged to him and as such, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution story and interfere with the impugned conviction and sentence. 11. We, therefore, find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. 12. For these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.